He was a great player! I would say that his best surface was grass, so really Wimbledon was his best chance. He was a serve and volleyer in the classic mold. He had a beautiful game and great form. He was not a great mover though. His 20's were between 1973-1983 and during those years, you had Connors, Ashe, Borg, and McEnroe winning at Wimbledon, so I think you are right, the competition at the very top was just a bit too much. He did push Borg to the brink at the 1979 Wimbledon. He lost to Borg in 1979 (2nd round) and to Connors (QF) in 1981, after having been up 2 sets to love in both matches.

He was a great player! I would say that his best surface was grass, so really Wimbledon was his best chance. He was a serve and volleyer in the classic mold. He had a beautiful game and great form. He was not a great mover though. His 20's were between 1973-1983 and during those years, you had Connors, Ashe, Borg, and McEnroe winning at Wimbledon, so I think you are right, the competition at the very top was just a bit too much. He did push Borg to the brink at the 1979 Wimbledon. He lost to Borg in 1979 (2nd round) and to Connors (QF) in 1981, after having been up 2 sets to love in both matches.

Click to expand...

Vijay was soooooo smooth and so elegant a player. He was capable of beating anyone when he was "on" his game. Yes I do think he would have had a shot to win Wimbledon in 1981 but it would have been very tough. If he beat Connors he would have had to face Borg next and if he beat Borg he would have to beat John McEnroe. Yet on grass he would have stood a better chance than most against these guys.

Have never seen him, but his best ranking was only no.16. considering that the competiton in tennis was not as tough as today no. 16 was pretty far away from the top.

seems to me more like a player like santoro who could have an occasional upset against greats but not consistently able to play at the top.

Click to expand...

Number 16 is certainly far from the very top, but in his time, there were a lot of very tough players to try and overcome. The top 10 and top 20 during the late 1970's-early 1980's had plenty of great players. So, the competition was extremely tough. The late 1970's has been termed a Golden Era in tennis, in which the Game reached the heights of its popularity. Tennis has not seen anything like that period since. He played completely different than Santoro, as he had a traditional S&V game, with extremely smooth strokes. As a young player, he along with Borg were considered part of the "new guard" that would challenge for the top by the mid-1970's. He was in a James Bond movie too in the 1980's, where he used his Donnay to hit some bad guys lol. Here's an interview with him.

Even at 33 he was near the top 100, so he had a really good career overall. In his prime though, the top 10-top 20 was full of great players (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, and Lendl in 1980 when he reached his highest ranking. Yet, he was known to play his best tennis against some of the best players around. He has been a great ambassador for the sport. He operates a charity and is a tennis commentator now. He has beaten Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Ashe, Smith, Laver, Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, just to name some of the great players he has wins against.

That was a promo shot from the James Bond movie. Amritraj was always a crowd favorite, known to be one of the nicest players on tour. He had great sportmanship and was a total class act. He does a lot of good charity work through his foundation. He now lives in the U.S.. His son and nephew are pro players now. Even Connors was a bit nicer on court when he was playing Amritraj lol..

I'm trying to remember - didn't Vijay's character die in Octo*****? Okay, they won't let me use the movie's title. I'll rephrase it. Didn't Vijay's character die in the James Bond movie?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think his character was killed soon after barreling down a road in India where Vijay's character was knocking people out left and right with a Donnay tennis racquet (I think he actually used a Donnay in the movie as a weapon in that scene). Great scene.

Yes, I think his character was killed soon after barreling down a road in India where Vijay's character was knocking people out left and right with a Donnay tennis racquet (I think he actually used a Donnay in the movie as a weapon in that scene). Great scene.

Click to expand...

I think I read a story in which a player hoping for an entry to Wimbledon that year if a player withdrew was watching the movie, saw Vijay's character die and yelled something like "I'm in! I'm in."

Didn't Vijay have a duel with some villain with his tennis racquet in that movie? I haven't seen the movie in years.

I think I read a story in which a player hoping for an entry to Wimbledon that year if a player withdrew was watching the movie, saw Vijay's character die and yelled something like "I'm in! I'm in."

Didn't Vijay have a duel with some villain with his tennis racquet in that movie? I haven't seen the movie in years.

Click to expand...

That's hilarious! Yes, you're absolutely right on the movie PC1. He wielded that Donnay like a sabre. I'm going to try and find some clips of his matches and that movie. It has some really funny scenes in it!

Talking about Vijay,he was quitea rare talent in his time.He had a classic, yet unorthodox S&V play, with a lot of touch shots, very easy backswing that allowed him to play winning points even from the most difficult positions.

He beat absolutely all of the big names in the game, including Laver and Borg ( 2 of the 4 GOAT candidates).His talent was marvelous and his moods and personality, something seldom seen in the sport.Yes, he got killed by the Afghan mercenaries in the film of Octo*****...but, hey, with a bit of time, he would have taken Roger Moore spot as James Bond...he was that classy guy.

Hard to say that, if Mac,Borg or Connors weren´t there, Vijay would have, at least a GS title under his belt.I honestly think he could, and his best chance would have been the Australian Open, where not many top players ventured in the 70´s.He could beat Vilas,Gerulaitis or Tanner, who were AO champs in the 70´s, but none of them were much greater talents than Vijay, at his prime.

Amritraj was one of the best grass courters of the 70´s, having reached the QF at FH twice ( beating a great player like Rosewall) and also reaching the W QF twice ( he beat Borg in one of those W).

He grew up on grass, and developed the instincts and movements that are of an expert on that surface, such as we know it was on that time ( sliding, fast, not like today).In an era of specialists ( 70´s and 80´s ), he clearly was one of the best on grass.Borg and Connors had to play their best to beat him at a 5 setter at Wimbly; he was one of the 3 players to beat Mac during his magic 84 season ( the other 2 being all timers like Lendl and Wilander)

Vijay´s only real problem, and may be the reason he never fulfillded his promsies, was he came up a very rich indian family and was never hungry enough to sacrifice anything to the will of winning, as was the case with Borg and Connors, i.e.If he had had the same drive as Bjorn or Jimmy, we could now talk about an all time great.

Vijay´s only real problem, and may be the reason he never fulfillded his promsies, was he came up a very rich indian family and was never hungry enough to sacrifice anything to the will of winning, as was the case with Borg and Connors, i.e.If he had had the same drive as Bjorn or Jimmy, we could now talk about an all time great.

Click to expand...

yeah maybe he didn'thave enough mongrel inhim..happy to represnt india and
the game and many other things rather than singularly winning..
this interview I got that impression anyway..

Remember, when he was growing up as a kid, there was no money in tennis - open tennis didn't really happen until 1968 and even then there wasn't a lot of money. It wasn't like today where parents and/or kids expect to be millionaires from it.
Don't worry, he probably made far more from the movie business than Borg, Connors, or McEnroe did playing tennis.

Scab is a common term. I'm surprised you haven't heard it. You must be very young and have not worked yet. Or sheltered and ignorant.
Scab: a worker who refuses to join a labor union or to participate in a union strike, who takes a striking worker's place on the job, or the like.
A scab is a very low form of life. Maybe someday you'll be unlucky enough to find out from personal experience if/when you lose a strike. Ask anyone working at a grocery store in USA. Ask your grandfather.
A scab is a person who enables the company to stay in business during a strike and by doing that, the company wins, the employees lose.
Vijay was one of those people.

This was a huge deal to the players. Those who played anyway, were disliked and lost respect.
81 of the top players refused to play Wimbledon in 1973. 13 of the top 16 seeds refused to play including two defending champions. Stan Smith won in 1972 and refused to play in 73. John Newcombe won in 71 and didn't, play 72 (I forget why), so he's in a way a defending champion too.
Smith, Newcombe, Ashe, Drysdale, most of the big names didn't play. Ilie Nastase is a notable exception and he will always be remembered for it. He says Romania government forced him to. Some Russians said the same thing. Connors and Borg played, but they weren't ATP members and were still unknown.

in 1973 the men decided to go on strike at Wimbledon to support Nicki Pilic who was suspended for not playing a Davis Cup match. It wasn't about Nicki Pilic though. It was the principal of the thing. The players wanted to play when and where they wanted. Open tennis was only 6 years old and it goes back to pre Open problems when each countries tennis organizations forced players to play certain tournaments. ALL the old US players talk about this in their books.

oops, yes, I was writing about you. Quoted the wrong person. Sorry Rorsach. Also, I should have added or noticed that you ananada were possibly an ESL'er (English second language). No matter what the word is, no matter what country they are in or from, a person who works during a strike is doing an immoral thing

"In 1974 Vijay was considered to be part of the ABC of the future of tennis. Amitraj Borg Connors"

Perhaps in some fantasy of the past. He wasn't ever in the class of those two. Prospects-wise, talent-wise or results-wise. True, I never liked his game. Typical sucky 70s backhand (problems coming over it and unreliable under pressure) and a boring "classic" eastern forehand. Borg was inspiring an entire generation with topspin and Connors had a deadly backhand. Vijay had -- not much game. Eliott Telscher was far more talented. Dick Stockton. Raul Rameriz. Eddie Dibbs. The list goes on and on and on.

Oh btw, Vijay is pronounced quite close to "Vee jay" , so its not anywhere close to what you guys were insinuating. (Actually, the "vee" is not stressed, its more like "vidge", and the "y" also pronounced.)

Most foreign commentators (Brits or Americans) would use the easy way and say "V J", or "veejay".

I have nothing to say about the strike, I would prefer he spoke for himself, as to why he played.

I don't know whether the situation can be likened to the boycott of the Olympics in 80 and 84. Britons were given the choice to attend or not, and some did. I would not pass a moral judgment on someone who has not committed a crime, but just did not honor a boycott or strike. He may have had his reasons. Whatever, that's just me, you have a right to your own opinion.

Oh btw, Vijay is pronounced quite close to "Vee jay" , so its not anywhere close to what you guys were insinuating. (Actually, the "vee" is not stressed, its more like "vidge", and the "y" also pronounced.)

Most foreign commentators (Brits or Americans) would use the easy way and say "V J", or "veejay".

I have nothing to say about the strike, I would prefer he spoke for himself, as to why he played.

I don't know whether the situation can be likened to the boycott of the Olympics in 80 and 84. Britons were given the choice to attend or not, and some did. I would not pass a moral judgment on someone who has not committed a crime, but just did not honor a boycott or strike. He may have had his reasons. Whatever, that's just me, you have a right to your own opinion.

Click to expand...

I have a pretty dirty mind but I can not think of anything dirty about the name or words Vijay Amritraj.
The 1973 Wimbledon boycott can't be compared to the US 1980 Olympic boycott. I don't remember the 84. USA must have been doing something real bad at the time?
It's ironic that USA is in Afghanistan now and we boycotted in 1980 because Russia was there back then. Usually an Olympic boycott is about war. Wimbledon 73 was about players having freedom to play where they want. (Nicki Pilic was suspended during Wimbledon for not playing Davis Cup). The ATP decided it's not fair and in order to protect everyone, they boycotted Wimbledon. I've read several books where players talk about this. Kramer, Ashe, etc. wrote about it in their books.
I don't know what you do for a living. I'm a meat cutter. My job has been greatly affected in a negative way by scabs. If you ever lost a strike because of scabs, you might have a different opinion. When you lose a strike, you can lose health care benefits, pension, wages, vacation (little things like that)

"...The 1973 Wimbledon boycott can't be compared to the US 1980 Olympic boycott. I don't remember the 84. USA must have been doing something real bad at the time?
It's ironic that USA is in Afghanistan now and we boycotted in 1980 because Russia was there back then. Usually an Olympic boycott is about war....

A teaching moment from wiki : "In response to the American-led boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, 14 Eastern Bloc countries including the Soviet Union, Cuba and East Germany (but not Romania) boycotted the Games. For differing reasons, Iran and Libya also boycotted. The USSR announced its intention not to participate on May 8, 1984, citing security concerns and "chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria being whipped up in the United States.""

Vijay Amritraj, the 19-year-old from Madras, India who reached the quarterfinals at both Wimbledon and Forest Hills this summer, has a relish for the game and a regard for the people involved in it that has not only impressed players and officials but has endeared him to the fans as well. Smiling broadly at opponents and clapping his racket strings overhead in appreciation of their winning shots, Amritraj has hit enough winners of his own to make a name for himself and for India, which has had little stature in world tennis since the prime of another Madras native, Ramanathan Krishnan.

Krishnan was ranked as high as third in the world in the late '50s, which was about the time the brightly colored cloth woven in his hometown was in vogue. He remains the only Indian to have reached the semifinals at Wimbledon, a fact that helps explain why Amritraj was so lightly regarded there this July, even though he was playing against a field depleted by the Association of Tennis Professionals' boycott. But unlike so many of the strange-sounding names in Wimbledon's 1973 draw, Vijay proved he could play, coming within two points of upsetting the eventual champion, Jan Kodes, in the fifth set. Nor was his showing a fluke, as anyone who watched the match could attest. He was sharp enough for the world's ranking players—both those who were at Wimbledon and those who were not—to take note that here, alas, was someone new to worry about.

The British press gave Amritraj little attention, however. It was absorbed by necessity with the ATP strike and, by choice, with the teenyboppers who chased Sweden's 17-year-old Bjorn Borg from Centre Court to Piccadilly Circus and back again. It was not until a month later in this country that Vijay made the headlines by surviving eight match points against three opponents to win the Volvo International in Bretton Woods, N.H. Down 0-5 in the last set against Humphrey Hose of Venezuela, then 4-5 and love-40 against Rod Laver's serve and 4-5 and 15-40 against Jimmy Connors' serve in the finals, Amritraj manufactured three miraculous comebacks to take the $5,000 first prize and a new car.

But Bretton Woods is a backwoods, to be honest about it, so it was not until his U.S. Open victory over Laver in a three-hour battle on national TV that tennis followers began to look upon him with the same sense of discovery and excitement that they have accorded young Connors and Borg. As soon as Forest Hills found out who Vijay was and learned to distinguish him from his brother Anand, it could not get enough of him. When reporters finished interviewing Vijay, his admirers would take over, trailing their Asian Pied Piper all the way back to the clubhouse and beyond, if the guards were not careful. Often, and considering the setting this seemed doubly strange, tennis was not the subject of their questions. Examples:

Who is the Guru Maharaj Ji, anyway? "I don't really know. He has no popularity in India. Only here." What music do you like to listen to? "Not Ravi Shankar, if that's what you mean." And the inevitable Americanized O.J. Simpson- Y.A. Tittle question: What do your initials "V.J." stand for? "Uh, oh, Vijay is my natural name."

Until Maggie Amritraj introduced her two oldest sons to tennis at ages 11 and 9, Anand and Vijay seemed destined to pursue other pastimes. Anand had been something of a chess prodigy since he was six. No doubt that is why he found cricket "too slow" and agreed to try tennis, which his mother had played in college. Vijay, on the other hand, wanted to become the best badminton player in India, a goal he did not give up until he saw how much fun Anand was having winning junior tennis tournaments.

T.A. Rama Rao, the boys' coach—he died last May—was a perfectionist and a disciplinarian. Once he slapped a three-day suspension on the brothers because in a moment of boyish irresponsibility they had raced off the court in the middle of a lesson to chase a paper kite. Luckily, Mrs. Amritraj intervened, the boys apologized and they were reinstated.

In 1968, before the boys were to leave home for their first series of junior team matches with Great Britain, their parents built a fast red-clay court on the 3 acres surrounding the family house. The house is sizable, a two-storied bungalow that was Maggie Amritraj's home as a child. It now houses the family of five (youngest son Ashok, 16, is an up-and-coming tennis player himself) and nearly a dozen servants. The boys' father, Robert Amritraj, is a senior official for the Southern India Railroad and well salaried, but not so well that the sporting activities of his sons do not sometimes strain the family budget. The Amritrajes are Roman Catholics, which discounts any theories that Vijay's gracious court manners and ability to handle pressure might stem from mystic Hindu disciplines. He is a very devout Catholic, and prays before each match. On Good Friday this year, Vijay fasted, then went out the next day and beat Sayed Meer in a Davis Cup match against Pakistan.

Vijay's traveling companion and roommate is his brother Anand. Though Anand has shown some signs of envy lately—at Forest Hills people were constantly calling him Vijay—the two brothers are so close that some felt Anand deliberately let Vijay win India's junior title from him in 1968. Anand had held the championship from 1965 to 1967, Vijay continued the family tradition from 1968 to 1970 and they are presently co-ranked No. 1 in India. Little brother Ashok is the top junior.

At home, as they are now to begin the Asian circuit, Vijay and Anand follow a standard routine, rising at 5:30 a.m. to swallow two eggs beaten in milk, followed by a three-mile run. Then it's back inside for a more normal breakfast and, finally, tennis—sometimes throughout a 110 day until dark. Though Mr. and Mrs. Amritraj always thought their first son would be the best player of the three, dedication has begun to pay off for Vijay.

Click to expand...

Amritraj has an almost classic tennis build, 6'3" and 158 pounds, a little thin, perhaps, but that will change. His serve is strong and he covers the court well, hitting ground strokes that are already among the hardest in the game. He has that nervelessness that accompanies youth, the ability to hit the same shot no matter if it is match point for or against him. He lost to Ken Rosewall at Forest Hills, but not because he was up against a tennis legend in front of a large crowd on center court. Rosewall was merely better. In fact, as shot after shot whistled by him, kicking up chalk, Vijay would look over to where Anand was sitting and smile delightedly, as if to say, "Isn't that great, Rosewall is just as wonderful as we always heard he was."

U.S. Open champion John Newcombe thinks Amritraj may already be the best young player in tennis. "When I played our Davis Cup match in Madras in May," he recalled at Forest Hills, "it was something like 130� on the court. Here we were, Vijay and I, in a 10,000-seat Davis Cup stadium that literally had been made out of bamboo and string and put up in 17 days. It was the most amazing thing I'd ever seen. We quit after a set each, and I remember thinking how uncommonly tough he was then. But after watching him play here at Forest Hills I feel he has the least amount of shots to improve among the young players. Borg and Connors, for example, still have weaknesses they need to work on, but Vijay gets to the ball very early with his long strides and good reach. If you're not careful with his powerful strokes, he'll knock the ball by you before you can get into position."

Success has already complicated the lives of Vijay and Anand, who fell only a tie-breaker point short of making the semifinals in doubles at Forest Hills. There are no endorsement offers as yet, but Vijay has agreed to switch from Slazenger to a Rawlings racket because they offered to pay him more. (Anand will, too, but he feels he is worth more than he is getting.) Winning the Volvo in New Hampshire meant that Vijay had to negotiate with the Indian government to relax its prohibitive import duty on automobiles (160% of cost) on the grounds that it was a prize and not purchased. Chances are that will be settled favorably, but he will continually have to contend with India's restrictive economic policies.

"Any money you take into India—dollars or pounds, for example—must be declared and then changed into rupees," he explains. "You are not allowed to take many rupees out of the country or to have a foreign bank account. So it is one thing to be rich inside India and another to be rich outside."

Eventually, Vijay would like to play the WCT tour, whether the India Lawn Tennis Federation likes it or not. He would be a stimulating addition to the tour. In Hindi, by the way, his first name means "victory."

"In 1974 Vijay was considered to be part of the ABC of the future of tennis. Amitraj Borg Connors"

Perhaps in some fantasy of the past. He wasn't ever in the class of those two. Prospects-wise, talent-wise or results-wise. True, I never liked his game. Typical sucky 70s backhand (problems coming over it and unreliable under pressure) and a boring "classic" eastern forehand. Borg was inspiring an entire generation with topspin and Connors had a deadly backhand. Vijay had -- not much game. Eliott Telscher was far more talented. Dick Stockton. Raul Rameriz. Eddie Dibbs. The list goes on and on and on.

Click to expand...

Of all the good 1970´s players, Stockton is the one I can´t really talk about, but I don´t think, talent wise, you can compare a real natural talent like Amritraj to Dibbs and Teltscher: 2 very good backhands, fast legs and great fighting minds , but nothing else ( which isn´t bad, anyhow¡¡¡).

Ramirez was extremely talented, and was more solid than Vijay.I could accept this name but seldom the other 3 (Dibbs,Teltscher and Stockton).

Even at 33 he was near the top 100, so he had a really good career overall. In his prime though, the top 10-top 20 was full of great players (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, and Lendl in 1980 when he reached his highest ranking. Yet, he was known to play his best tennis against some of the best players around. He has been a great ambassador for the sport. He operates a charity and is a tennis commentator now. He has beaten Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Ashe, Smith, Laver, Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, just to name some of the great players he has wins against.

Click to expand...

Had he taken the AO seriously, he could have very well won it.He was as good as other winners there, at least for a fortnight (Eddo,Tanner,Gerulaitis,Kriek)

When I once with Rosewall watched Vijay playing in a senior's doubles, Muscles said:" Great touch player" I had to smile a bit because it came off the mouth of one of the all-time greatest touch players at all and Rosewall had a 6:1 hth against Amritraj...

I don´t think there´s ever been, at least in the open ,era a player that has beaten as many all time greats as Vijay did, and still not make it to the top ten.Of course, his tennis was top ten but not his mind and, more than that, his real motivation.